I can't help but notice that the new wave of Tea Party Republicans, said to be on probation until they've proven themselves, have quickly circled their wagons to defend the established RINO culture. To make the point, we might as well start with the extremely popular young senator Rand Paul. But if you're paying attention, you too will notice the business as usual talking point repeated by many others.

On February 24, 2011, Senator Paul was interviewed by David Letterman. Here is the excerpt that this article addresses.

Letterman: In this day and age, what does it mean if you're a member of the Republican Party? What are the precepts? What do we stand for?

Paul: Well, we wanted to mean something. When I ran, I said the Republican Party is an empty vessel unless we imbue it with values. What I mean by that is kind of what the Tea Party says. You gotta believe in something. I think during many of the Bush years we became just like the Democrats. We could spend money just as fast as the Democrats could and we ran up the debt and that was a problem for me. I thought really that government needs to live within its means.

Letterman: Live within its means. So that's the headline for the Republican Party. If you're a Republican, you stand for fiscally responsible government, first and foremost. Is that right?

Paul: I think so, and I think that unifies a lot of people.

Letterman: And what about the Tea Party. Does that overlap with the Republican precept?

Paul: Yeah, and the difference is though the Tea Party [will] tell you if you don't vote correctly or if you vote with the Republicans when they're voting to bankrupt the country, we'll bring you home too. They're not very shy about it.

My question: Where's the Constitution  the one that enforces limited government and individual rights?

Let's review. There are three major kinds of conservatives competing to control US politics; social, political, and fiscal.

Social conservatives have proven just as politically dangerous as social liberals. Both favor arbitrary increases in government power and the use of force to intrude upon individual freedom. Both have contributed equally to the collapse of Constitutional rule.

American political conservatives are basically the modern version of classic liberals and the last actual defenders of Constitutional rule in the United States. There must be a structured relationship between government and the people that does not allow arbitrary government intrusion.

Fiscal conservatives are politically equivalent to fiscal liberals. There are no set rules that limit government involvement in anything and everything, just political preferences. They are also often just as much in favor of more government and more spending. If a pork-barrel scheme is promoted as an investment of public money that will eventually reduce spending, self-described fiscal conservatives are just as quick to jump on the band wagon as liberals, no matter how weak the argument that more spending equals savings. Over the past three decades, they have frequently voted in favor of arbitrary increases in government power to suit their agenda. They also tend to ally with social conservatives in order to win elections. In one major scam, they pretended arbitrary federal intrusion into marriage and family law would save taxpayer dollars by reducing poverty. Not only did the welfare budget skyrocket as a result, the institution of marriage was destroyed and took out fundamental individual rights with it.

Rand Paul is misleading when he equates fiscal conservative rhetoric with imbuing values in an empty vessel. Fiscal conservatism isn't values, it's a set of relative actions taken in context. We are once again being told to accept a government of people and not of laws. Paul and other new Republicans are not presenting a reformed Republican image. They're reselling the old one, and our experience already tells us that doesn't work and why. Fiscal conservatives do not imbue fundamental rules in the relationship between government and the people in their empty vessel.

Fiscal conservatism is a set of relative actions taken in context. It is not a set of values.

I read the POPS vs Gardner summary, though your link didn't work. It seems it was about divorce more than marriage. I guess the core of "social conservatism" would be strongly against divorce in the first place, and strongly for monogamy. So , to say that "social conservatism" "did more to destroy marriage than anyone else" indicates that you're approaching from a different direction. In fact "social conservatism" is one one of the bedrocks upon which the Constitution was founded. Let me play "Kreskin," or however you spell the Johnny Carson character-- you , or a very close friend, got beat up in court over custody and child support issues, and you now live in Sweden to be outside of the jurisdiction

The conclusion is based on actual political history - not a loosely constructed theory. The Reagan administration promoted “government enforcement of personal responsibility” - a pretty obvious oxymoron that started me on the path of understanding the level of stupidity involved in politics. People whose political views are steered by socially conservative values jumped on the band-wagon in droves. Divorce and marriage law is the same thing. It’s also called family law and was previously a state issue (as the Constitution would have it) under “civil law.” More than that, the USSC had previously defined marriage as a “sacred, private institution.” The POPS case changed that by redefining marriage and family issues as “social policy.” I guess I’ll have to find another link to the POPS case.

Perhaps we're talking of two distinct documents because the USC I'm familiar w/ contains no such requirement.

The USC is not a suicide pact that requires us to destroy the social fabric in the name of "fairness". If you do not understand the foundational nature of heterosexual marriage and its necessity for the maintenance of society then I'm afraid that you are a dunderhead and that any further argument is pointless.

Under the USC, there is no such thing as "social policy" to begin with. It's a name for a classification invented by federal courts to accommodate extra-Constitutional activities by the federal government. In terms of individual rights and protection against arbitrary government policy, it's equivalent in stature to fiscal policy. You have no individual right that will get your tax rates declared unconstitutional; except under "equal treatment" - doesn't matter whether you find that exact phrase in the Constitution or not. The term "social policy" is used when referring to welfare programs. A welfare recipient can similarly not have their entitlements increased by Constitutional argument - except for equal treatment.

The transition to social policy from civil law was a redefinition of marriage from a sacred private institution to an element of government welfare programs; where equal treatment (equal entitlement to government program benefits) arguments apply.

You are wasting your time and wasting a perfectly good term. You can go all the way back to political analysis written by a variety of observers in the United States that refer to the practice of Republicans latching onto popular Democrats to run as Republicans ~

You really have to learn to refer to Leftwingtards by their correct name ~ which NEVER has the word Republican in it.

McCain still isn't a RINO ~ never was. He's stuck dealing with LBJ's agenda. It's totally out of synch with the time, but you'll find his position is absolutely identical to that of Jerry Ford and Richard Nixon at that time on almost every Democrat initiative.

And if you want to denounce Nixon as a RINO, go ahead and we'll hoot you off the stage.

A semantic argument trying to replace substance? I’ve never seen that in a political discussion before. (lol) RINO can refer to any politician who uses the Republican name brand but doesn’t adhere to conservative principles. Having previously been a Democrat and switching to the Republican Party name brand for political convenience (like union leader Ronald Reagan for example) is not required.

BTW, that's not a SEMANTIC argument ~ it's one of elemental substance, to wit: POLITICAL entanglements versus IDEOLOGICAL entanglements.

Some terms are perfectly suited to politics ~ to wit, RINO; other terms are perfectly suited to ideology ~ to wit, LEFTWINGTARD (which has multiple variations).

Remember, as so many others have had to learn the hard way, COMMUNISTS cannot be dealt with like they were simply members of a political party, nor can ISLAMOFASCISTS be thought of as just another religion.

This would be the Rand Paul who got in trouble for criticizing the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

He's covering his rear end and trying to avoid getting into needless trouble, saving his energies for issues that really come up before Congress and that he can actually do something about.

That makes sense. Attacking him for not specifically saying on one occasion everything you want him to say is silly. Rand Paul is more of a "political conservative" in your sense or constitutional conservative than 98% of Congress and more of one than most people would vote for. His giving a canned maximalist answer that would bring canned negative responses wouldn't advance your agenda at all.

His dad is already known as the guy who wants to roll back government to where it was in 1960 or 1930 or 1900 or 1860 and most people safely ignore or dismiss whatever he says because it's become so expected from him and has so little to do with current issues and controversies.

Oh yeah. I forgot about that trick. I should have thought about the stuff he was hiding from us rather than what he came right out and said. Let’s see. I’m lookin’ for a new car. I’m imagining he’s sending me a new car. I can see it in my mind. He’s sending me a new car. OK. I guess I’ll vote for him repeatedly.

The US is currently operating completely within the boundaries of our Constitution, as it always has, by definition.

The problem that you and I have is that we both believe that those boundary lines have been spread too far and wide. Others, however, believe they haven't been spread nearly far nor wide enough.

We claim that there is no need to interpret the Constitution; that what it says is all there in plain clear English. Others, who also have votes, disagree. They believe in an evolving Constitution that is able to be flexible with changes in technology, culture, and society in general.

If we want our particular vision, which we believe to be the correct one, to succeed in the political arena then we need to limit ourselves to successful tactics.

There is a party which has been clearly and consistently stating a position in favor of Constitutionally limited government for some time. They have even put candidates on numerous ballots for a variety of political offices up to and including the Presidency of the US.

Of course we’re not operating within Constitutional boundaries. We’re no longer operating according to Constitutional rule. There are prescribed procedures for making changes to the Constitution. It’s unconstitutional to operate unconstitutionally just because someone says they feel good about it.

Political parties are what one might call extra-Constitutional. The US political system is not a partisan system. If you want partisan politics to represent the views of the people the way you describe, then you need a multi-party representational system - which the US does not have.

The poor quality of our de facto “two-party system” is a far cry from evidence that the majority opposes politicians who believe in Constitutional rule. That’s just a naughty argument.

You’re the one defending abandonment of Constitutional limits to government power. That would mean the only check / balance / control of power would be based on democracy - power of the vote. While that part of the system is controlled by an oligarchy, there isn’t democracy either. Are you a Stalinist?

Heh. Rand Paul called a RINO? It doesn't seem to be because he called for cutting off support for Israel and deceasing military spending first. Oh well, eventually his "true conservative" fan club will get buyer's remorse, since I agree he's more in the libertarian camp than the mainstream conservative camp.

I can't say I agree with the article's premise. I don't think social, political, and fiscal conservatives are competing for what it means to be conservative. In most cases, there's a lot of overlap and the conservative base pushes for all three. We DO have a problem that there are so many phony "fiscal conservatives" in government today that the term has essentially become meaningless, but the tea party and the club for growth have done a good job rooting out the phony "fiscal conservatives". Rand Paul DOES seem to be genuinely fiscally conservative. However, I question his commitment to the other two "legs" of conservativism, and 1 out of 3 isn't my ideal.

I don't buy the divide between "paleocons" and "neocons" either. The term "neo-con" has pretty much been made meaningless as well. But if GWB's vision of spreading "freedom" to the world is a good example of neo-conservative, and Pat Buchanan's isolationist views are a good example of paleoconservative, I refuse to identify as a member of either camp.

If there any type of modern-day division between conservative grassroots, I would place them in these two camps:

Traditional conservative: (as defined by Cincinatus' Wife) [Less government power at] Federal, state AND local levels! - Cut off their endless demands for our money and limit the time they need to show up for "work."

'Democracy is evil' "conservative": Shrink federal government to minimal levels. In fact, pretty much repeal any powers they've gained since 1789. Maybe even remove powers they had in 1789 and go back to the "articles of confederation" arrangement. However, INCREASE the level of current state and local government powers. Take power AWAY from individual citizens if necessary to do this, because states make wiser decisions than the little people and know what's best for us. Increase their power, perks, and the time they need to show up for work.

When it comes to those two competing philosophies, I place myself firmly in the first camp. Unfortunately I see a great many "conservative activists" promoting the beliefs of the latter camp, and it seems to be increasing popular. Maybe I should call it neo-dixiecratism, since their arguments seem to have been tried and failed miserably in the 1850s. ;-)

I agree that probably every GOP Senator has been called a "RINO" at some point or another. DIABLO is a good way to distinguish the truly horrid "Republicans" who vote just like Democrats, unfortunately it doesn't seem to have caught on as well and many people have no idea what it means. We wouldn't have this problem if people would just use the Republican In Name Only epitaph in its proper context, instead of making it all encompassing and including "people who vote the right way 90% of the time but went wobby on one or two important bills" in the RINO category.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.